Search results

Brazilian federalism was important in the political game of combating the pandemic for three reasons. First, Brazil's public health system depends heavily on intergovernmental relations between Union, states, and municipalities because there is a policy portfolio based on federative cooperation. Second, the subnational governments' autonomy to act against COVID-19 was constantly questioned by the Federal Government – the conflict between the President and governors was a key piece in all health policy. Finally, states and local governments were primarily responsible for policies to fight against pandemic, but the absence and/or wrong measures taken by the Federal Government (such as the delay in purchasing vaccines) generated intergovernmental incoordination, increased territorial inequality, and reduced the effectiveness of subnational public policies, especially those linked to social isolation. In this context, Brazilian federalism played a dual role in the pandemic. On the one hand, the federative structure partially succeeded in averting an even worse scenario, mitigating the impact of mistaken presidential decisions. The role of subnational governments, especially of the states, was critical as a counterweight to federal decisions. On the other hand, the President actively acted against governors and mayors and, above all, sought to weaken intergovernmental articulations within the Unified Health System (SUS), the federative model designed three decades ago. One could say that the federative actors, such as the Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF) and subnational governments, were the main obstacles for the Bolsonarist antiscientific agenda. The success of this reaction to President Bolsonaro's negationist populism was partial, but the results of the fight against COVID-19 would have been much worse without these federalist barriers.

This chapter addresses commentary about constitutional law and politics in this current era of a conservative domination of the judiciary.¹ Its primary concern is the different ways in which a working majority on the Court and its judiciary of appointees by Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush might be conservative,² and the different ways in which domination might take place.³ The frame for the chapter is what I call an “indifference thesis” for analyzing constitutional law and politics. Stated boldly, the thesis is that there should be a commentary distinguished by an interpretive attitude that distrusts, and intentionally resists, analysis based on preconceived notions about the strengths and weaknesses of any constitutional law and politics, be it conservative or left-liberal.⁴ Perhaps, to many readers, an indifference thesis for commentary appears methodologically odd, if not politically perverse. Therefore, the first order of business is to try to make the thesis less odd and perverse by explaining its provenance and attributes.⁵

This article examines the mandate reputation of the Endangered Species Act in its implementation context. Federal wildlife funding programs and laws are treated as messages to state wildlife agencies, and variety among state environmental conditions and agency management decisions shape the interpretation of federal messages. Innovations in planning for habitat protection in state, coastal zone, and county land use are treated as adaptations to the difficulties of conventional implementation. The Endangered Species Act's significance as a federal mandate is found to be questionable. The federal role as a regulator of endangered species protection is argued to be legitimate, but flexibility and collaboration with state and local interests in wildlife planning are also called for.

The purpose of this paper is to review strategies to build capacity for school improvement in Australia. The focus is on public schools and strategies adopted for the system as a whole.

This paper traces developments from a national perspective and makes a case for the key contemporary policy shift that has provided the platform for a new era of educational reform. Two contrasting case studies are described in order to demonstrate the pathways embarked on by a large jurisdiction, namely the State of Victoria, which has led the nation in terms of devolved decision‐making for public schools, and second, a much smaller jurisdiction, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), which is introducing a range of reforms to give public schools much greater autonomy in order to achieve improved performance. The paper concludes with a “futures” view of how strategies may continue to evolve. Shifting the language from “improvement” to “transformation” is canvassed.

It is concluded that a key to success has been to align strategies among different levels of the school system: central, regional/district, school and classroom. The possibilities for moving beyond improvement to transformation are canvassed.

The value of the paper lies in its up‐to‐date account of system‐wide efforts to improve schools and a summary of evidence on their impact. The paper is of particular interest to school and school system leaders as well as those engaged in the study of educational policy and educational leadership.

If intergovernmental relations are necessary in normal times, it should be even more required to face complex intergovernmental problem (CIP) as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, collaboration between governments depends on institutional rules as well as on political will. To discuss this issue, the analytical model is based on two dimensions: institutional design and political agency. As for the first dimension, since COVID-19 pandemic is considered as a CIP, three aspects are relevant when discussing how federations can organize the coordination between different levels of government: autonomy of subnational governments, mechanisms of coordination, and policy portfolio. As for political agency, the performance of political leadership (national presidents and governors) will be analyzed. The possibility of sharing collective goals across the federation is also a consequence of the political agency that takes place within the institutional systems of each federation. In short, it seeks to analyze the relationship between institutional design and political agency to deal with this CIP in five American federations.

American federalism permits the states a good deal of latitude for action, and, at the same time, the federal government can exercise control through both mandates and the use of its financial powers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal relationship was strained not only because of the sheer magnitude of the crisis but also because of political conflicts between the federal government and some of the states. During the Trump administration, the federal government initially denied the importance of the pandemic, and then (except for encouraging the development of vaccines) did little to support the states or citizens in fighting the virus. The Biden administration, on the other hand, was active in distributing the vaccine and in supporting other responses to the pandemic. The pandemic also exposed the underlying weaknesses in the public health system of the United States and the extent to which years of conflict between levels of government have reduced effective cooperation, even in times of crisis.

This article explores the implementation of infrastructure development projects funded by the Recovery Act’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) in a southeastern state to provide high-quality Internet connectivity in un- or under-served areas to alleviate the conditions contributing to rural areas’ fiscal crises. This context affords a unique opportunity to view fiscal federalism’s operational dynamics in times of economic crisis and explore how various grant administrators in charge of similar federally funded public works projects define fiduciary responsibility. We find that these administrators comprehend “fiduciary responsibility“ narrowly in terms of complying with the accounting and reporting requirements of the federal grant. However, they have a broader and more nuanced understanding of their overall responsibility that includes working on behalf of their respective communities’ interests to meet local and regional needs.